Why Not Digitial Distribution?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Their desktop enhancement software (I really wouldn't call it business) is critically dependent upon them maintaining a good relationship with Microsoft and it has been whittled away due to features incorporated in recent Windows versions (e.g. XP's ZipFolders obsoleting ObjectZip, XP's Themes cutting into WindowBlinds sales, Vista's Sidebar displacing Control Center).

Stardock's increased emphasis on gaming may be a desire to diversify - but it could also be an increasingly urgent attempt to exit a vulnerable and shrinking market, under threat by the world's biggest convicted monopolist.

Errr, except that Stardock's first product happened to be a game? So they are diversifying back into the market that they got their start in, and doing so with top selling titles, and high profile partnerships? They may be de-emphasizing their OS optimization software, but at the same time they are refocusing on what got them where they are today, and they're doing so with effective and clear plans.

But this is tangential to my original point - that if I take Brad at face value, as the person he portrays himself as, then I am confident that he will make his software public domain, if his company completely fails. You can argue that if things get really rough, they will enact the draconian user fees and whatnot that you seem so scared of, but I simply don't think that Stardock in particular, is a company that would stoop to such levels, as long as Brad is at the wheel.

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

...then I am confident that he will make his software public domain, if his company completely fails.

As this Authorization Servers article notes, if a company fails, it is the creditors that dispose of its assets. It is unlikely that anyone, even the CEO, would be able to release them free to the public without facing legal action.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

...I simply don't think that Stardock in particular, is a company that would stoop to such levels, as long as Brad is at the wheel.

My view is that companies should be judged by their actions, not their PR. Stardock's PR has been great - especially compared to the train-wrecks of some other publishers (EA, 2K, etc) - but their actions (switch-and-bait DRM, imposing extra charges) differ little from the tactics used by others and the backpedaling on their "Gamer's Bill of Rights" seems to have confirmed that as PR over principle (not least since Stardock themselves don't comply - points 8-10 notably though 4 is open to debate too).